mrshowrules:Canada and Australia avoided the brunt of the crash through sound banking/investment regulation. It is almost like letting the banks do whatever the fark they wanted in the US had a downside.

"Oh, come on. We haven't had a major banking crisis since we passed Glass-Steagall, and that was years ago. What's the worst that could happen if we eroded it?"

Aarontology:Shostie: Aarontology: So it wasn't just the tax cuts, but the entirety of Bush's economic policies that caused the Crash of 08.

Hrm... It actually goes back a lot farther than Bush.

I'm not saying that he didn't help. But the reasons for our economic woes run far deeper than tax policy.

That's true. A lot of it started under Clinton when they deregulated some important parts of the financial world.

The claim about tax cuts being responsible wasn't really true, but deregulation was. And the fact that Clinton planted the seed doesn't excuse Dubya from doing nothing while the crisis grew and grew and grew. If someone had stepped in in 2003 the crisis would have been much smaller.

There was plenty of time to decide that things weren't working out so well and reverse course before things got to the point of kneecapping the entire world's economy.

vpb:The claim about tax cuts being responsible wasn't really true, but deregulation was. And the fact that Clinton planted the seed doesn't excuse Dubya from doing nothing while the crisis grew and grew and grew. If someone had stepped in in 2003 the crisis would have been much smaller.

There was plenty of time to decide that things weren't working out so well and reverse course before things got to the point of kneecapping the entire world's economy.

It doesn't excuse him, but if we're to prevent something like the Crash from happening again, we have to realize the full extent of the problem and where and when it all started.

Aarontology:vpb: The claim about tax cuts being responsible wasn't really true, but deregulation was. And the fact that Clinton planted the seed doesn't excuse Dubya from doing nothing while the crisis grew and grew and grew. If someone had stepped in in 2003 the crisis would have been much smaller.

There was plenty of time to decide that things weren't working out so well and reverse course before things got to the point of kneecapping the entire world's economy.

It doesn't excuse him, but if we're to prevent something like the Crash from happening again, we have to realize the full extent of the problem and where and when it all started.

Dusk-You-n-Me:make me some tea: That is discussing a dangerous drop in revenue due to the tax cuts, but that's a separate issue from the financial crisis.

I'm not so sure that it is.

FTA: Just to be sure, we checked with Klein, and here is how he responded: "I am absolutely not saying the Bush tax cuts led to the financial crisis. To my knowledge, there's no evidence of that."

While the Bush tax cuts certainly didn't help (mind you, this only became a problem after the economy collapsed), they didn't cause the collapse itself. The Financial Crisis was a global phenomenon. Link

make me some tea:I also will note that the tax cuts certainly did nothing to protect us from economic collapse either.

That was more my goal. Taking a look at the effects of the tax cuts on several aspects of our economy - deficit/debt, lack of economic stimulation and thus record low GDP and job growth, etc. If none of these, or at least a few of these, weren't also as bad as they were around the time of the crash it may not have been so deep or taken so long to get out of.

make me some tea:Dusk-You-n-Me: make me some tea: While the Bush tax cuts certainly didn't help (mind you, this only became a problem after the economy collapsed), they didn't cause the collapse itself.

I wasn't claiming the cuts caused the crash by themselves, but I can see how my post may make it seem like I was.

Fair enough. I also will note that the tax cuts certainly did nothing to protect us from economic collapse either.

Now imagine if we had some kind of "locked box" with surpluss money that could have been tapped durring that crisis.

Dusk-You-n-Me:make me some tea: I also will note that the tax cuts certainly did nothing to protect us from economic collapse either.

That was more my goal. Taking a look at the effects of the tax cuts on several aspects of our economy - deficit/debt, lack of economic stimulation and thus record low GDP and job growth, etc. If none of these, or at least a few of these, weren't also as bad as they were around the time of the crash it may not have been so deep or taken so long to get out of.

Maybe. It added to the debt, no doubt about that.

I'm kinda disappointed that the Obama campaign has chosen to run with this fallacy, though. I think most of us want a fact-based campaign, even when the facts don't show us something we'd prefer to see. Not gonna change my vote, because Romney's fallacies are 10x as abundant, but why give them any ammunition at all?

TwistedIvory:The abrogation of the Glass-Steagall act is often cited as a Clinton policy that made the banking crash possible. I tend to agree.

Except it wasn't really a "Clinton Policy". Repeal of Glass-Steagal was a Republican cause for decades and under the Reagan Administration, GS was essentially neutered to the point of irrelevance long before Phil Graham officially put the bullet in its head. All Clinton did was sign the bill. Well, that and letting that hack Larry Summers serve as Treasury Secretary.

Both President Obama and former president Bill Clinton assert that Mitt Romney wants to cut taxes for the wealthy and cut financial regulations - which they suggest is a recipe for another economic crisis.

The name "George W. Bush" is never mentioned but is certainly implied. This leads to the question: Did the Bush tax cuts cause the economic crisis?

No, it leads to the question: Did the Bush tax cuts and cuts to financial regulations cause the economic crisis?

The tax cuts never caused the economic collapse, duh, that's stupid. They just prevented us from having hundreds of billions of dollars of revenue that we would have otherwise had to help fix the economic collapse. The collapse itself came from financial center deregulation and reduced oversight, which allows bankers to take incredibly risky positions, and lose.

Mentat:Except it wasn't really a "Clinton Policy". Repeal of Glass-Steagal was a Republican cause for decades and under the Reagan Administration, GS was essentially neutered to the point of irrelevance long before Phil Graham officially put the bullet in its head. All Clinton did was sign the bill. Well, that and letting that hack Larry Summers serve as Treasury Secretary.

justtray:The tax cuts never caused the economic collapse, duh, that's stupid. They just prevented us from having hundreds of billions of dollars of revenue that we would have otherwise had to help fix the economic collapse. The collapse itself came from financial center deregulation and reduced oversight, which allows bankers to take incredibly risky positions, and lose.

We should stipulate at the outset that Romney adamantly rejects the idea that he has proposed more tax cuts for the wealthy

If you took away all deductions from the top earners and lowered their rates at what Romney proposes.....they would get more money. To make it revenue neutral this means that the middle and lower incomes will pay more to cover it.

I hate to even post in a politics thread but honestly I can't resist. The economic crisis was a direct result of the housing bubble bursting and more specifically the irresponsible lending practices that let to it in the first place...

CPennypacker:Why is it that every time someone fact checks the president to be "fair" they are fact checking something that the president never actually said?

MOOchele Obama has said that a school lunch of Sunny D and a pound of chili cheese fries is not healthy. Well, we looked at the vitamin content of Sunny D and found it is a capable source of several vitamins. We give her statement seven pinocchios.

vpb:The claim about tax cuts being responsible wasn't really true, but deregulation was. And the fact that Clinton planted the seed doesn't excuse Dubya from doing nothing while the crisis grew and grew and grew. If someone had stepped in in 2003 the crisis would have been much smaller.

There was plenty of time to decide that things weren't working out so well and reverse course before things got to the point of kneecapping the entire world's economy.

That. I still remember Dick Cheney going on television (after the crisis was going full on) and saying (basically) that they didn't see it coming. I'm an economic idiot and *I* saw it coming. I saw it coming *before* I bought a house in 2006 where the bank (Chase) offered me twice as much loan as I needed and told me they could get more if necessary.

Citrate1007:We should stipulate at the outset that Romney adamantly rejects the idea that he has proposed more tax cuts for the wealthy

If you took away all deductions from the top earners and lowered their rates at what Romney proposes.....they would get more money. To make it revenue neutral this means that the middle and lower incomes will pay more to cover it.

Fark you GOP, the middle class has had enough.

I love the obvious double-standard. "We take Romney at his word, but let's nitpick this statement by Obama."

You know what? As Democrats have finally learned after many years of Lucy snatching the farking football, arguments that resonate are what farking count. Fact checkers, Republicans, and anybody else can say whatever they farking like about them after the fact, but once it's embedded in the public consciousness, you can't put the farking genie back in the bottle. So fark you, Glen Kessler et al, enjoy your finger wagging to farking no one. We done learned how this game is played, and listening to folks biatch about the Democrats taking advantage of the rules is sweet, sweet music to my ears..